News:

"There is a terrible desperation to the increasingly pathetic rationalizations from the climate denial camp. This comes as no surprise if you take the long view; every single undone paradigm in history has died kicking and screaming, and our current petroleum paradigm 🐉🦕🦖 is no different. The trick here is trying to figure out how we all make it to the new ⚡ paradigm without dying ☠️ right along with the old one, kicking, screaming or otherwise." - William Rivers Pitt

Author
Topic: Sun Is Weakest In 200 years (Read 787 times)

Sun Is Weakest In 200 yearsPosted on November 12, 2013 by WashingtonsBlogSunspot Activity at Record Low, And Magnetic Orientation Is Puzzling

[As usual, go to original to follow embedded links.]

Reuters and Space.com noted in September that sunspot activity was at a 100-year low.

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that this sun’s solar maximum is the weakest in 200 Years:

Based on historical records, astronomers say the sun this fall ought to be nearing the explosive climax of its approximate 11-year cycle of activity—the so-called solar maximum. But this peak is “a total punk,” said Jonathan Cirtain, who works at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration as project scientist for the Japanese satellite Hinode, which maps solar magnetic fields.

“I would say it is the weakest in 200 years,” said David Hathaway, head of the solar physics group at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala.

***

“There is no scientist alive who has seen a solar cycle as weak as this one,” said Andrés Munoz-Jaramillo, who studies the solar-magnetic cycle at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass.

***

At the same time, scientists can’t explain the scarcity of sunspots. While still turbulent, the sun seems feeble compared with its peak power in previous decades. “It is not just that there are fewer sunspots, but they are less active sunspots,” Dr. Schrijver said.

***

Several solar scientists speculated that the sun may be returning to a more relaxed state after an era of unusually high activity that started in the 1940s.

“More than half of solar physicists would say we are returning to a norm,” said physicist Mark Miesch at the High Altitude Observatory in Boulder, Colo., who studies the internal dynamics of stars. “We might be in for a longer state of suppressed activity.”

In January, Nasa warned that we might be on the verge of another “Maunder minimum” … where low solar output leads to a mini ice age.

We could be heading into another Maunder minimum … or a shorter and less severe cooling trend.

The truth is that no one knows. As Reuters reported earlier this year:

Giuliana DeToma, a solar scientist at the High Altitude Observatory in Colorado … admitted “we will do not know how or why the Maunder Minimum started, so we cannot predict the next one.”

Many solar experts think the downturn is linked a different phenomenon, the Gleissberg cycle, which predicts a period of weaker solar activity every century or so. If that turns out to be true, the sun could remain unusually quiet through the middle of the 2020s.

But since the scientists still do not understand why the Gleissberg cycle takes place, the evidence is inconclusive. The bottom line is that the sun has gone unusually quiet and no one really knows why or how it will last.

Indeed, scientists are largely mystified by the sun, and are just starting to learn about interactions between the sun and the Earth.

For example, the Wall Street Journal notes:

To complicate the riddle, the sun also is undergoing one of its oddest magnetic reversals on record.

Normally, the sun’s magnetic north and south poles change polarity every 11 years or so. During a magnetic-field reversal, the sun’s polar magnetic fields weaken, drop to zero, and then emerge again with the opposite polarity. As far as scientists know, the magnetic shift is notable only because it signals the peak of the solar maximum, said Douglas Biesecker at NASA’s Space Environment Center.

But in this cycle, the sun’s magnetic poles are out of sync, solar scientists said. The sun’s north magnetic pole reversed polarity more than a year ago, so it has the same polarity as the south pole.

“The delay between the two reversals is unusually long,” said solar physicist Karel Schrijver at the Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center in Palo Alto, Calif.

Scientists said they are puzzled, but not concerned, by the unusual delay. They expect the sun’s south pole to change polarity next month, based on current satellite measurements of its shifting magnetic fields.

Sun Is Weakest In 200 yearsPosted on November 12, 2013 by WashingtonsBlogSunspot Activity at Record Low, And Magnetic Orientation Is Puzzling

Propaganda 101Key words above and hidden persuader:

KEY WORD---->HIDDEN PERSUADER1. WEAKEST------>COOLEST

2. LOW------------>COOLING

3. PUZZLING------>DOUBT

Surly,

Does the above mean we no longer have to worry about Global Warming?

Do you not find it suspicious that the WALL STREET JOURNAL is so concerned with our welfare?You normally are quite suspicious of news that would OBVIOUSLY bolster the dirty energy status quo. You don't think this one does that?

Do you, or do you not, agree that the above news LACKS one important feature of serious scientific inquiry (i.e. The statement that RESEARCH NEEDS TO BE DONE TO DETERMINE THE EFFECTS OF THIS PHENOMENON ON EARTH'S CLIMATE)?

Isn't it just AMAZING how we can be showered with erudite and "scientific caution to not jump to conclusions because more research is needed" when severe weather frequency and strength (as claimed WITH SCIENTIFIC DATA by over half of climate scientists) is caused by Global Warming from burning fossil fuels but when a phenomenon that they "ADMITTEDLY HAVE NO CAUSE AND EFFECT SCIENCE OR TRACK RECORD TO JUDGE ITS EFFECT ON GLOBAL WEATHER" occurs (i.e. the "WEAKEST SUN" in "200 years" - nice round number, EH, Surly? Would you like to CHECK meteorological and solar output science QUALITY and PRECISION in 1813?).

Do you STILL not smell a Big Oil Koch propaganda rat here? Okay, I'll spell it out for you.

They DELIBERATELY used the word "WEAKEST", not "COOLEST" to describe the trend in solar output. They did, that, friend, BECAUSE solar radiation is in many frequencies, WITHOUT a proportionally equal heating effect per frequency. Yes, it's a bit confusing to the layman. But not to the scientist. That's why these clever PROPAGANDA PIECES are careful with their phraseology (they want to make it hard for real scientists to accuse them of mendacity and pseudo science agenda BS in the service of big oil).

Why is the types of radiation IMPORTANT to this debate? Because the earth's atmosphere is HEATING from the ABSOLUTELY WEAKEST PART OF THE SOLAR RADiATION SPECTRUM!!!

A WEAKER Sun will produce LESS of it's main JUICE in radiation (Gamma rays and maybe part of the high powered UV, NOT the weaker UV that is making it to our atmosphere, converting to IR and being trapped by CO2).

So what is the point? The point is to leave it HANGING in the AIR that the "SUN is WEAKER" so the layperson will put 2 and 2 together and get THREE as far as Global WARMING is concerned. If the article was REALLY science based, it would have said:

ONE. More research is needed to determine if this has an effect on earth's climate.

TWO. There is presently no scientific evidence that a reduction in the gamma, X-ray and upper UV solar radiation spectrum will reverse the current scientific consensus that CO2 is causing global warming because it is the weakest UV A and B converting to IR that has been proven to heat our atmosphere.

THREE. The solar irradiance weakening appears to be limited to the high energy spectrum. Research is needed to determine if the lower energy spectrum is also weakening in order to assume we are no longer at risk of global warming induced severe weather and biosphere damage from the burning of fossil fuels.

Surly, ONE. TWO, THREE, look at MR Propaganda LEE doing his dance for fossil fuel profits and Global Warming denial by OMITTING ONE, TWO and THREE. The pupose is, as the Marshall Institute, infamous for the Tobacco strategy and ozone problem denial before they went to GW denial, is NOT to attack the science DIRECTLY.

The Purpose is to SEED DOUBT

Quote

The truth is that no one knows.

in order to DELAY the transition away from fossil fuels and the ASSIGNMENT of RESPONSIBILITY for the damage to the Fossil Fuel Industry predatory, profit worshipping liars... Hey, the SUN is WEAKENING! Hot Dog! Let's go fill er' up with premium and PARTY! We are SAVED! No more Global Warming to worry about or those silly ALARMISTS wanting to take my SUV away!

If you believe the story you posted above is serious science, you are being taken for a fool. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Quote

Surly1:

Jesus, AG, take a chill pill.The article addresses sunspot activity and a kind of magnetic orientation uncertainty, and cites a NASA scientist. Nothing in there from the hireling Lee, nor from the Marshall Institute, CO2Science, or any other denialist organization. I don't have your knowledge of the science involved; but what I took from this article was that, if the sun were in a normal cycle, global warming would be worse than it already is, and we'd already be enjoying methane hydrates popping up from the seabed.

I didn't stop to parse the fine shadings of meaning between "weaker" and "cooler," and I am well aware that the Kochs, like rust, never sleep, but I did not get "happy motoring" out of that article.

Having done battle here with the likes of MKing and other cornucopian shills, I assumed you would understand that then article seemed to represent an odd bit of scientific business rather than a denialist salvo. Evidence, if you will. And we always go where the evidence leads, yes?

"We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis Brandeis

Quote

Golden Oxen:

Same here Agelbert, I said to myself, " My Goodness what would our weather be like without this having happened. You have to understand that some of us here have little knowledge in these matters and are more or less dependent on what we read. On the face of it, it appeared an interesting article to a layman such as myself. No doubt would have posted it myself if I came across it.

Your rebuttal of the article and it's intent was enlightening and has lessened the articles stature and importance to my mind at least. Thanks for pointing out facts that certainly seem to have been omitted.

agelbert

GO and Surly,I apologize if I seemed somewhat vitriolic. Decreasing sunspot activity has been a big part of the GW denial machine for almost a decade. I think there is a LOT of money out there to whisper (indirectly, of course) into people's ears that fossil fuels and nuclear power are being victimized by alarmist sky is falling chicken little tree huggers.

The Wall Street Journal and Zero Hedge get quite a bit of readership and, as muck racking as they seem, can be insufferably pro-status quo dirty energy.

Surly, if you posted that article on FB, why not post my hollered critique? It may get you more readers and give my forum some views too. :icon_mrgreen: A vigorous debate can attract readers. Reduce it to the ONE, TWO, THREE points I brought up and pull anything else out of it you want. If I am right, you will get an INSTANT herd of GW deniers out to defend their innocent sounding article. If I'm wrong, my answer will be ignored (propagandists scour the web 24/7 looking for anything that can undermine their bought and paid for messages). Of course, since they generally ignore low traffic areas, the result may be inconclusive.

Also, please watch Washingtonblog for a piece in the next week or so defending or denying Global Warming science or fossil fuels' liability for environmental and property damage claims. The innocent sounding piece may be a credibility building gesture.

GO, I'm glad you agree how adding ONE, TWO and THREE to the article changes the picture. :emthup:

Nowadays, whether people are conscious of it or not, we ALL are looking for evidence for or against an acceleration of the environmental storm inertia. Massive Fortunes are riding on it.

Ironically, our survival, which is much more important, is NOT what the main debate is about.

It's about WHO PAYS FOR THIS ****. Fossil fuel foolers DON'T WANT TO PAY. So I weigh absolutely anything I read out there based on that 60 million dollars (from the Koch crooks alone in the last decade!) paying people to lie through their teeth. I am a tiny voice but I'm not going to make it easy for those conscience free criminals.

By the way, my invitation for you to sign up on my forum is a permanent one even if we may get into a good old fashioned shouting match from time to time.

Your rebuttal also illustrates a point we should not lose sight of, is that deniers' mission is simply to create doubt. WHich can be done with shadings of language, emphasis, story placement (or omission.)

And I am sure Dr. Lee's work will earn him a special chair in hell.

Yep. Here's a little background on the sunspot fun and games going all the way back to 2008. Notice how the article, even back then, was NOT presented as Global Warming denial. It was the old "doubt MO.

Quote

Fri, 2008-04-04 08:43Page van der Linden

Global Warming Deniers Favorite "Sunspot" Theory Refuted... Again

If one were to reach into the grab bag of global warming skeptics' favorite theories, one might pull out any number of speculation-laden papers and editorials regarding the supposed effect of solar activity on the Earth's climate.

For example, here's an excerpt from an October 2007 presentation given by a member of the Exxon-funded Heartland Institute:

How long will the global warming alarmists be able to sustain the public hysteria without strongly rising temperatures? This will be a key factor in the short-term future of climate warming legislation.

Henrik Svensmark of the Danish Space Research Institute says cosmic rays are the link between the sun’s variability and Earth’s temperatures. More or fewer cosmic rays, depending on the strength of the “solar wind,” seed more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that cool the Earth. Further experiments to document this impact are planned in Europe.

The research to which the presentation refers is described in this paper by Svensmark, which, oddly, does not mention climate change, although the (non-peer-reviewed) press release for his research does:

The experimental results lend strong empirical support to the theory proposed a decade ago by Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen that cosmic rays influence Earth’s climate through their effect on cloud formation.

'Many climate scientists have considered the linkages from cosmic rays to clouds to climate as unproven,’ comments Eigil Friis-Christensen, who is now Director of the Danish National Space Center. ‘Some said there was no conceivable way in which cosmic rays could influence cloud cover. The [current research] now shows how they do so, and should help to put the cosmic-ray connection firmly onto the agenda of international climate research.

(Click at link for the Real Climate discussion of Svensmark's et al.'s claims.)

Unfortunately for the "sunspots and cosmic rays, not humans, cause global warming" crowd, British scientists have just blown their claims out of the water. The BBC News website has the story:

Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity.

The research contradicts a favored theory of climate "sceptics", that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature. The idea is that variations in solar activity affect cosmic ray intensity.

But Lancaster University scientists found there has been no significant link between them in the last 20 years.

Presenting their findings in the Institute of Physics journal, Environmental Research Letters, the UK team explain that they used three different ways to search for a correlation, and found virtually none.

The article points out the obvious:

This is the latest piece of evidence which at the very least puts the cosmic ray theory, developed by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark at the Danish National Space Center (DNSC), under very heavy pressure. Dr Svensmark's idea formed a centrepiece of the controversial documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.

The Great Global Warming Swindle was essentially a global warming skeptic-laden response to Al Gore's fact-based documentary, An Inconvenient Truth. It came out in May 2007. Its focus on Svensmark's theory is perplexing, given that three years earlier, scientists reported:

A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.

Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays mayhave affected climate in the past, but not the present.

'This should settle the debate,' said Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.

In other words, there is repeated evidence from multiple researchers that global warming is caused by human activity.Not by sunspots.

Not by cosmic rays.

What will it take to convince the skeptics?

Agelbert can answer that one! When the money to buy Pseudo Scientific BS dries up!

Originally published by UNICEF Regional Office for the Middle East and North Africa P.O.Box 811721 - Amman, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan 1984

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Created by the Documentation Center at AUB in collaboration with Al Mashriq of Høgskolen i Østfold, Norway.

970730/wa-bl/980215/bl - Email: almashriq@hiof.no

Solar Energy

From Sun to Earth

Outer Space

The enormous amount of energy continuously emitted by the sun is dispersed into outer space in all directions. Only a small fraction of this energy is intercepted by the earth and other solar planets.

The solar energy reaching the periphery of the earth's atmosphere is considered to be constant for all practical purposes, and is known as the solar constant. Because of the difficulty in achieving accurate measurements, the exact value of the solar constant is not known with certainty but is believed to be between 1,353 and 1,395 W/m2 (approximately 1.4 kW/m2, or 2.0 cal/cm2/min). The solar constant value is estimated on the basis of the solar radiation received on a unit area exposed perpendicularly to the rays of the sun at an average distance between the sun and the earth.

In passing through outer space, which is characterized by vacuum, the different types of solar energy remain intact and are not modified until the radiation reaches the top of the earth's atmosphere. In outer space, therefore, one would expect to encounter the types of radiation listed in Table 1, which are: gamma ray, X-ray, ultraviolet, and infrared radiations.

Atmospheric Effects

Not all of the solar radiation received at the periphery of the atmosphere reaches the surfaces of the earth. This is because the earth's atmosphere plays an important role in selectively controlling the passage towards the earth's surface of the various components of solar radiation.

A considerable portion of solar radiation is reflected back into outer space upon striking the uppermost layers of the atmosphere, and also from the tops of clouds. In the course of penetration through the atmosphere, some of the incoming radiation is either absorbed or scattered in all directions by atmospheric gases, vapours, and dust particles. In fact, there are two processes known to be involved in atmospheric scattering of solar radiation. These are termed selective scattering and non-selective scattering. These two processes are determined by the different sizes of particles in the atmosphere.

Selective scattering is so named because radiations with shorter wavelengths are selectively scattered much more extensively than those with longer wavelengths. It is caused by atmospheric gases or particles that are smaller in dimension than the wavelength of a particular radiation. Such scattering could be caused by gas molecules, smoke, fumes, and haze. Under clear atmospheric conditions, therefore, selective scattering would be much less severe than when the atmosphere is extensively polluted from anthropogenic sources.

Selective atmospheric scattering is, broadly speaking, inversely proportional to the wavelength of radiation and, therefore, decreases in the following order of magnitude: far UV > near UV > violet > blue > green > yellow > orange > red > infrared. Accordingly, the most severely scattered radiation is that which falls in the ultraviolet, violet, and blue bands of the spectrum. The scattering effect on radiation in these three bands is roughly ten times as great as on the red rays of sunlight.

It is interesting to note that the selective scattering of violet and blue light by the atmosphere causes the blue colour of the sky. When the sun is directly overhead at around noon time, little selective scattering occurs and the sun appears white. This is because sunlight at this time passes through the minimum thickness of atmosphere. At sunrise and sunset, however, sunlight passes obliquely through a much thicker layer of atmosphere. This results in maximum atmospheric scattering of violet and blue light, with only a little effect on the red rays of sunlight. Hence, the sun appears to be red in colour at sunrise and sunset.

Non-selective scattering occurring in the lower atmosphere is caused by dust, fog, and clouds with particle sizes more than ten times the wavelength of the components of solar radiation. Since the amount of scattering is equal for all wavelengths, clouds and fog appear white although their water particles are colourless.

Atmospheric gases also absorb solar energy at certain wavelength intervals called absorption bands, in contrast to the wavelength regions characterized by high transmittance of solar radiation called atmospheric transmission bands, or atmospheric windows.The degree of absorption of solar radiation passing through the outer atmosphere depends upon the component rays of sunlight and their wavelengths. The gamma rays, X-rays, and ultraviolet radiation less than 200 nm in wavelength are absorbed by oxygen and nitrogen. Most of the radiation with a range of wavelengths from 200 to 300 nm is absorbed by the ozone (O3) layer in the upper atmosphere. These absorption phenomena are essential for living things because prolonged exposure to radiation of wavelengths shorter than 300 nm destroys living tissue.

Solar radiation in the red and infrared regions of the spectrum at wavelengths greater than 700 nm is absorbed to some extent by carbon dioxide, ozone, and water present in the atmosphere in the form of vapour and condensed droplets (Table 1). In fact, the water droplets present in clouds not only absorb rays of long wavelengths, but also scatter some of the solar radiation of short wavelengths.

Ground Level

As a result of the atmospheric phenomena involving reflection, scattering, and absorption of radiation, the quantity of solar energy that ultimately reaches the earth's surface is much reduced in intensity as it traverses the atmosphere.The amount of reduction varies with the radiation wavelength, and depends on the length of the atmospheric path through which the solar radiation traverses. The intensity of the direct beams of sunlight thus depends on the altitude of the sun, and also varies with such factors as latitude, season, cloud coverage, and atmospheric pollutants.

The total solar radiation received at ground level includes both direct radiation and indirect (or diffuse) radiation. Diffuse radiation is the component of total radiation caused by atmospheric scattering and reflection of the incident radiation on the ground. Reflection from the ground is primarily visible light with a maximum radiation peak at a wavelength of 555 nm (green light). The relatively small amount of energy radiated from the earth at an average ambient temperature of 17°C at its surface consists of infrared radiation with a peak concentration at 970 nm. This invisible radiation is dominant at night.

During daylight hours, the amount of diffuse radiation may be as much as 10% of the total solar radiation at noon time even when the sky is clear. This value may rise to about 20% in the early morning and late afternoon.

In conclusion, therefore, it is evident that in cloudy weather the total radiation received at ground level is greatly reduced, the amount of reduction being dependent on cloud coverage and cloud thickness. Under extreme cloud conditions a significant proportion of the incident radiation would be in the form of scattered or diffuse light. In addition, lesser solar radiation is expected during the early and late hours of the day. These facts are of practical value for the proper utilization of solar radiation for such purposes as destruction of microorganisms.

Agelbert NOTE: The conclusion " it is evident that in cloudy weather the total radiation received at ground level is greatly reduced..." DOES NOT mean, as the Global Warming deniers have tried to make us believe, that the ATMOSPHERE heats up less. It means that to disinfect water (kill the microrganisms) the radiation arriving on the SURFACE needs to have less cloud cover.

But as you read further up, inside the atmosphere (at cloud level well below the ozone layer) the absorption frequencies of gases can scatter the radiation throughout the atmosphere. The reflected light (visible spectrum) from clouds and surface DOES exit the planet. HOWEVER, the Earth CONSTATLY radiates in the IR band which CO2, water and methane trap quite handily because of their ABSORPTION FREQUENCIES. So all that increased albedo business that Global Warming deniers want to push on us, while it will increase VISIBLE light reflection, won't do BEANS to stop the ONLY HEAT that is radiated by this planet (IR).

BOTTOM LINE: Absorption frequencies are the KEY to understanding how the atmosphere heats or cools. The particulate scattering plays a role but the absorption frequencies are the 800 pound gorilla.

Now lets get back to sun spots for a bit of humor. Question: What percentage of the suns TOTAL OUTPUT IN ENERGY reaches top levels of the atmosphere BEFORE it is further selectively reduced by the atmosphere?

I'll save you the math:

Quote

The Earth intercepts only about one-half of one-billionth of the Sun's total energy output.

Do you now understand why all that BS about sunspot lessened activity and a "weakening" sun doesn't mean JACK **** to us on this planet. The "weakening" of the sun has to be hundreds of thousands of time greater than the piddling amount observed to amount to a hill of temperature BEANs on Earth.

That's why I have told Snowleapard that what he is pushing is baseless, but CLEVER, pro-fossil fuel, context free, IRRELEVANT propaganda.

Snowleapard. I CHALLENGE YOU to doubt the three sources I just gave as to accuracy and TRUTH. If you do, you are bought or .

Gobal Warming DENIAL Propaganda Message MO - Frame propaganda as an "alternative view" (FAIR AND BALANCED!) THEN, PAD the "news" with hidden persuaders like snow flake pictures and high sounding, "scientific" pseudo credentials that look like the real thing! Madison Avenue Showing Off It's Slickest, Conscience Free Con Expertize! Big Oil Wants Its MONEY'S WORTH! They HAVE TO DELIVER A THREE DECADE DELAY! No LIE is TOO HARD TO DiSGUISE AS TRUTH by these **** HIGHLY Intelli-STUPID REPTILES!

So tell us, Snowleopard, do you think Washington's Blog and globalresearch.ca/globalresearch.org are RELIABLE and TRUTHFUL WEBSITES?

WHY?

The Fossil Fuelers DID THE Climate Trashing CRIME, but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks , they are trying to AVOID DOING THE TIME or PAYING THE FINE! Don't let them get away with it! PASS IT ON! The planet you save may be your own!

No doubt, our climate system is complex and messy. Still, we can sometimes make some inferences about it based on well-known physical principles. Indeed, the beauty of physics is that a complex systems can be reduced into simple terms that can be quantified, and the essential aspects understood.

A recent paper by Sloan and Wolfendale (2013) provides an example where they derive a simple conceptual model of how the greenhouse effect works from first principles. They show the story behind the expression saying that a doubling in CO2 should increase the forcing by a factor of 1+log|2|/log|CO2|. I have a fondness for such simple conceptual models (e.g. I’ve made my own attempt posted at arXiv) because they provide a general picture of the essence – of course their precision is limited by their simplicity.

However, the main issue discussed in the paper by Sloan and Wolfendale was not the greenhouse effect, but rather the question about galactic cosmic rays and climate. The discussion of the greenhouse effect was provided as a reference to the cosmic rays.

Even though we have discussed this question several times here at RC, Sloan and Wolfendale introduce some new information in connection with radiation, ionization, and cloud formation. Even after having dug into all these other aspects, they do not find much evidence for the cosmic rays playing an important role. Their conclusions fit nicely with my own findings that also recently were published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

The cosmic ray hypothesis is weakened further by observational evidence from satellites, as shown in another recent paper by Krissansen-Totton and Davies (2013) in Geophysical Research Letters, which also concludes that the there is no statistically significant correlations between cosmic rays and global albedo or globally averaged cloud height. Neither did they find any evidence for any regional or lagged correlations.

It’s nice to see that the Guardian has picked up these findings.Agelbert NOTE: IT will ALSO be nice as well as EDUCATIONAL and significant to observe who DIDN'T pick up on these findings (e.g. Globalresearch.org - Et tu Brute? ).

Earlier in October, Almeida et al., 2013 had a paper published in Nature on results from the CLOUD experiment at CERN. They found that galactic cosmic rays exert only a small influence on the formation of sulphuric acid–dimethylamine clusters (the embryonic stage before aerosols may act as cloud condensation nuclei). The authors also reported that the experimental results were reproduced by a dynamical model, based on quantum chemical calculations.

Some may ask why we keep revisiting the question about cosmic rays and climate, after presenting all the evidence to the contrary.

One reason is that science is never settled, and there are still some lingering academic communities nourishing the idea that changes in the sun or cosmic rays play a role. For this reason, a European project was estaqblished in 2011, COST-action TOSCA (Towards a more complete assessment of the impact of solar variability on the Earth’s climate), whose objective is to provide a better understanding of the “hotly debated role of the Sun in climate change”(not really in the scientific fora, but more in the general public discourse ).

ps Oldenborgh et al. (2013) also questioned the hypothesised link between extremely cold winter conditions in Europe and weak solar activity, but their analysis did not reproduce such claims.

New subject for Doomers to ponder: Earth's sea level AND terrain level is changing as the Earth's rotation slows.

Quote

When global rotation stops, the massive oceanic water migration would cease and sea level would be at different locations, completely changing world geography.

Quote

The extent of a hypothetical northern circumpolar ocean over the territory of North America is shown. The orange color indicates areas with elevation higher than 3,000 meters above the level of the northern ocean. Red dots represent some of the biggest cities of the continent.

The actual slowdown of the earth's rotation has been observed, measured, calculated, and theoretically explained. As newer methodologies are developed and more precise instruments are constructed, the exact rate of the slowdown may vary between some sources. Reflecting this very gradual slowing, atomic clocks must be adjusted to solar time by adding a leap second every so often. The first leap second was added in 1956.

All Antarctica would be under water at this point. The north polar waters and the water over the vast, recently submerged territories in Siberia and Canada would be getting deeper. At the same time, equatorial waters would be getting more shallow.

Large land areas near the equator continue growing and join with each other. By now, nearly all of Canada, Europe, and Russia are covered by a northern circumpolar ocean.

Most scientists agree that the solar day (related to the speed of rotation) is continuously getting longer. This minimal increase of the day length is due mainly to the oceanic tidal friction. When the estimated rate of the slowdown was projected back to past geologic eons, it showed that the length of a day was several hours shorter than today.

Consequently, during the Devonian period (400 million years ago), the earth rotated about 40 more times during one revolution around the sun than it does now. Because the continents have drifted significantly since that time, it is difficult to make estimates of the land versus ocean outlines for that era. However, we can be certain that—with a faster spinning speed in the past—the equatorial bulge of oceanic water was much larger then than it is today. Similarly, the ellipsoidal flattening of the earth was also more significant.

This animation (at link below) depicts the intermittent stages during this migration of the earth's oceans and changes in land extents, topographic elevation, and bathymetric depth caused by the decreasing speed of the earth's rotation. It shows the effects of the gradual reduction of centrifugal force from its current level to none, leaving gravity as the only force controlling the ocean's extent.

The influence of the rate of the earth's rotation has a dominant effect on the geometry of the globe, in terms of the globe's overall shape as well as the outline of the global ocean. The earth's physical relief is only a secondary factor controlling the delineation of oceans.

The slowdown of earth's rotation will continue for 4 billion years—as long as we can imagine. The slowdown infinitesimally—but steadily—changes the globe's geometry and makes it dynamic.

The net result of these dynamic adjustments is that the earth is slowly becoming more and more like a sphere. However, it will take billions of years before the earth stops spinning, and the gravitational equipotential creates a mean sea level that is a perfect sphere.

About the Author

Witold Fraczek is a longtime employee of Esri who currently works in the Application Prototype Lab. He received his doctorate in the application of GIS in forestry from Agricultural University and master's degrees in hydrology from the University of Warsaw, Poland, and remote sensing from the University of Wisconsin, Madison.